TB5-01719
Because the USA was designated under s.109.1(1) of IRPA on the date of the RPD decision, s.110(2)(d.1) precluded any appeal to the RAD; the RAD therefore lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TB5-01719
- Parties
- Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Refugee Appeal Division
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 19 February 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Jurisdiction Determination
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Designated Country, Jurisdiction, Appeal Bar Under IRPA S.110(2)(d.1)
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
XXXX XXXX
Appellant
XXXX XXXX
Designated Representative
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division Jurisdiction Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the RAD has jurisdiction to hear appeals where claimants are nationals of a country designated under s.109.1(1) of IRPA
- 2 Whether the USA designation bars appeal under s.110(2)(d.1) of IRPA
Ratio Decidendi
Because the USA was designated under s.109.1(1) of IRPA on the date of the RPD decision, s.110(2)(d.1) precluded any appeal to the RAD; the RAD therefore lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-01719 TB5-01720 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX(XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause XXXX XXXX (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision February 19, 2015 Date de la décision Panel Ken Atkinson Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Johnson Babalola Barrister & Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) XXXX XXXX Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) (a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) received a Notice of Appeal from the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in the claims of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ("minor Appellants"). XXXX XXXX is the mother of these minor Appellants. She was appointed as the Designated Representative of the minor Appellants at the RPD hearing and this designation was confirmed by the RAD. [2] The Notice of Appeal was received by RAD on January 16, 2015, from the minor Appellants. According to the Notice of Appeal, the minor Appellants are appealing a decision of the RPD dated February 5, 2015 with written reasons received by the persons on February 11, 2015 rejecting their claims for refugee protection. [3] According to the RAD records, the RPD decision was dated February 5, 2015 and was deemed to be received on February 12, 2015. [4] Section 109.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) provides that the Minister may, by order, designate a country for the purposes of Section 110(2) of IRPA. Section 110(2)(d.1) of IRPA provides that no appeal may be made of a decision of the RPD allowing or rejecting a claim for refugee protection made by a national of a country that was, on the day the decision was made, designated under Section 109.1(1) [5] XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are citizens of the United States of America ("USA"). The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has, by order effective December 15, 2012, designated the USA under section 109.1(1) of IRPA. According to the Appellants' Notice of Appeal filed to the RAD, the claims were rejected by the RPD by a Notice of Decision dated February 5, 2015. [6] The USA was a designated country on the day of the RPD's decision to reject the claims. As such, no appeal of the decision may be made to the RAD. [7] These appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (signed) 'Ken Atkinson' Ken Atkinson February 19, 2015 Date RAD.25.02 (June 23, 2014) RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-01719 TB5-01720